Talk:Warrior Cats Wiki
Note: Please only discuss things having to do with the main page here. Any other Wiki-related discussion should be taken to the '' ''Community Portal talk page. Useful Details Useful Links :Friends of the Warriors Wiki(Talk) :Warriors Wiki Goals(Talk) Advertising Click the images, the URL to use for linking to the image (which should then be linked to this site) is available in the image summary. Image:Wikibutton1.jpg| 88x33px Blue Image:WikibuttonAnimated2.gif| 88x33px Animated News Submissions Enter in your suggestions and submissions for news items here in the case that you know something the Sysops have missed and feel should be included. Credit will be given as it is due. Feel free to write the news piece up as you would like it to be in the Newsbox. Kitsufox 18:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC) Limited amount of blog posts. Hi, I was just thinking, that there really are too many blogs on this wiki :/, anyway, I wondered if it might be a good idea, if each user had a blog post limit. If, say, each user can only make up to 4/5 blogs, on Warriors Wiki, (excluding other wikis) and can only post up to 120 posts on other users blogs. This could help the wiki, because a lot of users are forgetting the real meaning of this wiki, and using it only to create worthless blogs, which only cause arguaments between spesific users and anonymous users. [[User:Clarrissa koins|'Clarr'issa!☆]][[User talk:Clarrissa koins|'My talkpage!']] 08:53, July 17, 2010 (UTC) I understand what you're saying about too many blog posts, but I think some users create blog posts but also contribute to the wiki. I think if users are creating too many blog posts and commenting on a lot of blog posts, and not contributing to the main articles they should be warned to start contributing to more articles, and if they don't they should have the privilege of blog posts taken away. This is just my idea. Whitestorm17 13:05, July 17, 2010 (UTC) Not taken away, limited. I agree with Claissa, and users can always delete blogs as well. WaterbenderMouseH RULES! 20:44, July 19, 2010 (UTC) I also agree Clarrisa. [[User:Dawnleaf|'Dawny']] 04:34, July 20, 2010 (UTC) I agree, Clarrisa. Limited, not taken away, like Mousetalon said. [[User:Icestorm123|'♥Ice']][[User talk:Icestorm123|'storm★']] 12:22, July 20, 2010 (UTC) :Rather than limited, I think that perhaps there should be some kind of formal policy or guidelines for these blog posts, as some can be constructive and this should not be limited. What we need to abolish is the overuse of blogs for things such as general chatter, roleplay and other such things that are not permitted on user talk pages; we need to remove the use of blog posts as a way of getting around the talk page rules. -- Sandystar 12:32, July 20, 2010 (UTC) :Makes sense to me. WaterbenderMouseH RULES! 16:36, July 21, 2010 (UTC) :What I meant was, there are some users who wrtie blog posts but also contribute to the wiki and are a member of many projects. Whitestorm17 16:43, July 21, 2010 (UTC) :Yes, but we still should stop the roleplaying on the blogs though. WaterbenderMouseH RULES! 23:14, July 21, 2010 (UTC) :Yes, I think the roleplaying should be removed. Whitestorm17 23:40, July 21, 2010 (UTC) :We should remove roleplaying then keep blogs so we can still socialise. 14:29, July 22, 2010 (UTC) :But this Wiki isn't only for socializing! Too many users mainly contribute to blogs and chatting, but this is a Wiki! We can't have that! WaterbenderMouseH RULES! 23:35, July 22, 2010 (UTC) That's why I said we should make sure that if users are using blog posts, they should also be contributing to the articles. If they continue to not contribute to articles they should have blog posts taken away. Whitestorm17 02:24, July 23, 2010 (UTC) I'm pleased to see that you all are identifying this problem and bringing it up without my help. =) I was actually planning to write out some possible guidelines for blog use and such, as the problems that you pointed out are valid. The role playing, multiple posting and the obsessive use on them will need to be dealt with, as well as other problems such as a way of getting around the one-image rule, with users posting multiple images on the blogs. I'll create a dedicated forum soon so we can discuss some possible guidelines for blogs, so as not to clutter this page. Thank you all for your comments, and I'll post again when I've created the forum. I look forward to hearing any ideas y'all might have for it. --[[User:Bramble|'Bram']][[User talk:Bramble|'ble']] 02:51, July 23, 2010 (UTC) Hi, I think that Whitestorm is right. Maybe we shoud do that instead of what I posted earlier? I don't mind :) [[User:Clarrissa koins|'Clarr'issa!☆]][[User talk:Clarrissa koins|'My talkpage!']] 09:49, July 23, 2010 (UTC) Thanks Clarissa! And Thanks Bramble for dealing with this. Whitestorm17 17:13, July 23, 2010 (UTC) If it violates the Is NOT policy then it should be getting slapped down. Blog or not. Blogs are still on this site, and still subject to that policy. It's one thing to use them for valid thoughts/discussions... But RP is not such a thing. Particularly if they're violating the personal image policies on top of the Not policy. [[User:Kitsufox| Kitsufox ]][[User talk:Kitsufox| Fox's Den]] 19:18, July 26, 2010 (UTC) I agree. A lot of users here use blogs for roleplaying, and they are not being warned. This should be strongly inforced to these users, in order to stop them from roleplaying here. [[User:Clarrissa koins|'Clarr'issa!☆]][[User talk:Clarrissa koins|'My talkpage!']] 10:42, August 9, 2010 (UTC) Link Trade? Hello, I was curious if you would be interested in doing a link trade with our roleplaying site? It would allow you to get your button out more and at the same time help us out. 02:42, July 26, 2010 (UTC)Frostsoul No. This is not a roleplaying site. We do not comminacate or link ourselves to roleplay sites. The amount of roleplay here already needs to be cut down. This won't help. [[User:Clarrissa koins|'Clarr'issa!☆]][[User talk:Clarrissa koins|'My talkpage!']] 10:39, August 9, 2010 (UTC) New Releases The neweset releases are Skyclans Destiny (Today: August 3) and Ravenpaw's Path: The Heart of a Warrior (Again Today: August 3) could someone chage the newest release Rainear be as silent as rain Helix changed it. =) Whitestorm17 19:51, August 3, 2010 (UTC)(Talk!) Facebook Page? As we know, a lot of the revealed information to the warrior cats is found on Vicky's Facebook Page. Should we add a link to her facebook when we reference it? Just a question. EarthbenderTawny Style! 15:55, August 18, 2010 (UTC) Yes, you should. Some articles already have this but, it should be implemented on all ''articles. As well as a link to an Erin Hunter Chat if that's where the information was found. I hope this answers your question! :) 19:02, August 18, 2010 (UTC) The thing is, Facebook posts expire over time. If something was said say, a year ago, it can no longer be obtained. 16:27, August 24, 2010 (UTC) We should verify if FB posts do expire. If they don't we should start screen-shotting and uploading our proof that such things have been said. If there isn't a record of it being said, it matters as little as a statement an author makes to a person at a book signing. 19:17, August 24, 2010 (UTC) Yeah, but anyways, since I don't have a FB, I don't think I can see Vicky's account unless I type it in in google, but my parents don't like it when I go on FB, even if it's just to look. >;( so someone would have to do that when it comes to links. : I'm a Facebook user and it does seem that Facebook posts do expire. And the expiration of a facebook post effectively invalidates any evidence they provide. Some sort of consideration needs to be given to if Facebook should be considered a valid reference source, and if it is how we go about making permeant than source and how we validate something like a screenshot of a facebook post (IE: Only accepting those uploaded by members deemed "Trustworthy", ect). : : Kitsu! Four ~!! Remember! Tawny (Talk) 00:42, September 5, 2010 (UTC) So far, I've been linking to the thread on Warriorswish where the questions are posted after they've been answered. -- 01:11, September 5, 2010 (UTC) : That's not proof. That's not even a valid source. That's just people reporting (and potentially misreporting) on a forum. Referencing chat transcripts Blizz puts on her website is one thing... But that forum isn't anything but a mosh-pit. No order, very few rules, and no guarantee of the truth. 01:16, September 5, 2010 (UTC) ::If you can find a better source, then go ahead. :/ -- 02:20, September 5, 2010 (UTC) ::: You'll notice that I made a few proposals, about archiving screenshots of facebook posts and things like that. The Warriors Wish thread is, unfortunately, nothing more than hearsay. We don't take "so and so heard it from the authors" unless they provide a video. Thus it's a simple extrapolation to say that "so and so saw it on a facebook page" simply isn't good enough. Not without a picture. I just think standards like "no anons pictures will be valid" so that accountability exists would be a good policy. It doesn't take a graphic designer to font-match and put in their own text. We're in a fandom where people ship things hard and will do what they must to make their view look like the valid one (there's a whole other Wiki started by a few thugs because they didn't agree with proven facts strait out of the books and other good sources). 12:38, September 5, 2010 (UTC) My last secret hope was that the Wayback Machine (a web archive) stores facebook content, but apparently it is not. It seems there is no "secure" way to record what is posted here. :( We should tell the Erins to use some more permanent solutions. 14:48, September 11, 2010 (UTC) : The only other solution I have would be for project Leaders, Deputies and Senior Warriors (IE: Those who have well and truly proven themselves to the project) to be responsible for taking and uploading screenshots of relevant facebook posts. It creates work and forces us to create our own record... But there doesn't seem to be a better solution... The thing I worry about is that if we don't do something soon the phase "it was revealed on facebook" will become the equivalent of "Erin Z said it at a book signing". And in the same vein, I think we need to use similar standards. IE: I'll believe someone about something revealed at a book signing if they show me a video/audio clip of the erin saying it. I think a screenshot from a trusted editor should be the "gold standard" when dealing with Facebook. 15:35, September 11, 2010 (UTC) : : Really? What few pages have Facebook links?! Scarletvixen Yay! More Concerns!!! Okay, as we know, there are many ''ancient ''cats that appear in only Code of the Clans or Battles of the Clans. But whenever an article says they're an ancient cat, should we put them under the deceased category? Just wondering. EarthbenderTawny Style! 18:56, August 21, 2010 (UTC) I don't know if there is an official rule about this, but most ancient cats have the deceased category, and they should. 19:13, August 21, 2010 (UTC) As Whitestorm's post implied: Dead is dead. The era of death isn't what the deceased category refers to, but rather their status in relationship to the chronologically most recent book. 18:05, August 24, 2010 (UTC) Even MORE concerns (I get a lot of these ;P) Wow, this is my third time in a row having concerns, but shouldn't the SkyClan ancestors have their own cateogry, like SkyClan Ancestor? Just pondering EarthbenderTawny Style! 19:18, August 21, 2010 (UTC) That doesn't belong here. Take it up with Project:World. 19:22, September 10, 2010 (UTC) Sidebar covers wiki logo on main page When I go to Warrior Cats Wiki page, the sidebar jumps up and covers the wiki logo. Is this happening to anyone else? --Fandyllic 8:30 PM PST 23 Aug 2010 No. Everything is fine to me. Every single day, it's fine. Maybe it's your browser? 16:13, August 24, 2010 (UTC) I think what Fandyllic means is that the logo disappears and the search bar jumps up at the very top, because this happens to me too when I'm just logging in. (sits in a corner pondering) EarthbenderTawny Style! 17:53, August 24, 2010 (UTC) Really? It never happens to me. 17:54, August 24, 2010 (UTC) Er...just realized its whenever it goes to the MAIN PAGE sorry about that he he ;D EarthbenderTawny Style! 14:20, August 25, 2010 (UTC) Friends Lists. Hi. I just saw that friends lists are no longer allowed. I'm quite upset. I thought friends lists were a way of users communicating and socialising together. I understand that some users don't use these lists correctly, and this wiki is not entirely for socialising, but I'd like to know why users have come to the desision of friends lists no longer being allowed. [[User:Clarrissa koins|'Clarr'''issa!☆]][[User talk:Clarrissa koins|'My talkpage!']] 09:54, August 24, 2010 (UTC) Forum:WWiki is NOT, Forum:Terminating "Friends Lists" and Forum:Suggested Clarification to Policy:Warriors Wiki is NOT 10:11, August 24, 2010 (UTC) List of people you consider friends are not banned. Lists in which your friends apply their signatures and thus create loads of pointless additional edits for the staff to patrol are what is banned. Sandy has also very kindly provided links to the related discussions and subsequent vote that were undertaken to make this carefully considered choice. If you don't participate in the Wiki Operations and vote when these things come up, how upset can you really be? Not one person cast a single vote against the changes that were discussed. 18:08, August 24, 2010 (UTC) Why did you people even do that. Loads of users love friends lists. I think you admins have become a pinch too controling.(no offence) Zoe27Gossip Queen!!! 17:37, September 10, 2010 (UTC) : We did it because why should everyone have to look through tons of worthless signatures when the Guestbook Wiki offers a dedicated place for that service that y'all can use by simply linking to your guestbook account. WWiki isn't a social network. It's an encyclopedia. Those friendslists were technically never within the rules. This was a clarification, not a change. As for "Loads of users love friends lists"... Where were your counter-points for keeping them when it was being discussed? The Operations forum is no secret. Not a single user spoke in favor of them. I think you're very much over-inflating the desirability of friends lists. If you really, seriously want to pursue a rules change, open an Operations Discussion Area forum topic on the subject. Be sure to outline your reasons for supporting the change. I hope you have a more detailed support plan than "People like it". If you want to gain consensus you'll need actual reasons to gain support. 17:59, September 10, 2010 (UTC) : Guestbook wiki sucks, like literally, nobody gos on it and you took away a priveledge we had here. Admit it. And, also, please cease to mock what I wrote earlier. Zoe27Gossip Queen!!! 16:44, September 13, 2010 (UTC) :: I apologize if you read anything I wrote previously as having a mocking tone. That was not what was intended. And we didn't take away a privilege. We clarified rules that already existed because a number of people were violating the not policy because they took a lack of specifically mentioning something to mean it was acceptable. As I said: if you wish to pursue having it become acceptable, you'll have to do better to get support than "people like it". You'll need to rally supporters and come up with a method that doesn't open up userpages to vandalism going unnoticed (one of the easiest ways to spot userpage vandalism is by a non-owner of a userpage editing it. With friends lists this becomes an invalidated means to spot that vandalism and means that staff must manually check a bunch of potentially malicious edits rather than only those that are truely potential vandalism). The Guestbook Wiki provides a service that you can use, though linking to that page to collect signatures just as you did here''. I could probobly invent a cute little template to go on your userpage for linking it if you're willing to put together a list of what information you are interested in having it include and let me know. I'm not sure what you'd be interested in having on it, since I don't get into that friendslist thing. 17:11, September 13, 2010 (UTC) Banning all charart not part of Project Charart. Hi, a lot of users have unnesessary charart on their pages. I don't think they should. Should all non-series related charart be banned? I think it's a great idea. These chararts often cloud ideas of the wiki for new users. Right now it's just 'Charart! Charart! Make me a charart in this description. Now!!' It's utter nonsense. The wiki is NOT about making chararts for imaginary cats. I think all chararts outside project-charart should be banned. It causes problems with vandals. Remember fluffybunnies and littletigress? Or the blackstars or lions? They thourght they could make charart, not approve it and stick it on a page. In my opinion all charart not part of Project Charart should ''be banned. What do you think? Zoe27 10:53, August 24, 2010 (UTC) I disagree with this. Most users don't have the ''time ''to make chararts for PCA, so they use the blanks to create simple one for the time they have. Also, requesting chararts can benefit the user being requested, for it can help their skills in creating chararts. I know that you are concerned, but mainly, those users who vandalize are taken care of. Fluffybunnies has now even taken the will of StarClan! (lol) and if a user has their own character, like mine is Bronzepelt, so what better way to describe them by using a charart!! EarthbenderTawny Style! 13:20, August 24, 2010 (UTC) :Um, what? Are you saying that people have the time to make 5+ chararts for themselves and others but not time to make ''one at a time for PCA? At this time I don't think we are going to ban personal chararts completely but I know that we definitely need to keep a better watch on people having too many personal images. But I definitely would not endorse this or go so far as to say that it's beneficial to the wiki. And btw Zoe the people you referred to got blocked for rude behavior, not for image abuse. 15:18, August 24, 2010 (UTC) Uhhh...I think that users shouldn't have their 'own cat' and these chararts are not even wiki related anyway. Some of them are quite childish, too.(I'm not saying yours are, though) I do understand, though. Zoe27 15:21, August 24, 2010 (UTC) I VERY much disagree. I think it's fine for users to have their own pictures, it would make you guys seem strict and mean, and then people will leave and go to a more free wiki. HawkeyI am a Ninja Duck! Fear me! 15:34, August 24, 2010 (UTC) Please refrain from advertising in the middle of discussions thank you Hawkey. I'm with Insane on this one. 16:01, August 24, 2010 (UTC) I agree with Insane Zoe27 16:10, August 24, 2010 (UTC) Alrighty, I am forced to agree with Insane. :) HawkeyI am a Ninja Duck! Fear me! 16:21, August 24, 2010 (UTC) Sorry, I mean beneficial for the USER, not the wiki...because it can help with practicing for PCA, it's definatly helped me :), but I do agree, Insane, Sandy, and Hawkey :) EarthbenderTawny Style! 16:26, August 24, 2010 (UTC) I agree with Insane and Sandy. 17:14, August 24, 2010 (UTC) I think the solution is on it's way in, through the enforcement of the 1 image per person thing. And I firmly believe that it should be "One image on the userpage, period" to make tracking easier. (IE: If you want to display your approved character art you have to do it on a sub-page to avoid confusion). I've been personally waging a bit of a war on excess personal art. But I do think that something needs to be done with art brokers and gift art. Gift art needs to go away. There is no place on the recipients userpage 99% of the time. And I think request artists need to be expected to help us police image limits. IE: Not making art for people already above them. Charart shouldn't leave this website, and in accordance if it doesn't fit on the userpage there is no reason to make something that a staffer will just have to delete. 18:01, August 24, 2010 (UTC) I stand by my idea. Zoe27Gossip Queen!!! 17:41, September 10, 2010 (UTC) Menu Bar order I'm not sure if it's different for anyone else, but under the Books part of the menu bar, here's the order I see (going by series) Rise of Scourge Tigerstar and Sasha Original Series Super Editions Graystripe's Adventure Ravenpaw's Path New Prophecy Power of Three Field Guides Omen of the Stars Wouldn't it make it easier if we did it in chronological (did I spell that right?) order? Original Series New Prophecy Power of Three Omen of the Stars Super Editions Graystripe's Adventure Tigerstar and Sasha Ravenpaw's Path Rise of Scourge Field Guides Just my thoughts, doubt it if anyone can see it, but if can, can someone edit the menu bar? (I know the admin's can do it because I'm an admin at my wiki and I can edit the menu bar ;P) One more thing (wow lol this is LONG) shouldn't The Sign of the Moon and The Forgotten Warrior be under the Omen of the Stars bar thingy ma bobber? ;P EarthbenderTawny Style! 17:50, August 24, 2010 (UTC) : I think that decisions about the order of the books in the sidebar should fall to Project Books. And once a decision is reached about the appropriate order it can be installed. Right now I think it's in (roughly) publishing order and what you're asking is something more chronological with the "manga" stuffed down (I would personally put the field guides above the "manga". But that's just me being anti-"manga") at the bottom. Anyways: Project books... This is a question for them, methinks. 18:04, August 24, 2010 (UTC) : : Okay, sorry, I just put it here because it had to do with the menu bar...and the main talk page for warriors wiki? You know... :: No scolding was intended, and if it came across that way I apologize. It's one of those fuzzy things, but as your question pertained directly to how the books are listed in the menu, rather than the overall menu, it should be directed to the books project since it's sort of like our officially displayed "order" or sorts. Or at least the most visible order. 02:03, August 25, 2010 (UTC) Suggestion Hi all! A minor suggestion: I see that this page is used for all kinds of wiki-related discussions (I admit that I used it for the same thing as well several times)... how about using the Community Portal talk page for such discussions (since it was already started up and used more or less successfully for a period of time), in order to keep all major wiki-related topics in one place? Just a thought, of course. Kind regards, 12:51, August 25, 2010 (UTC) Sorry, Helix, but I disaggree. I think everything is fine as it is, no biggies:) Zoe27Gossip Queen!!! 18:37, September 10, 2010 (UTC) I'm inclined to agree with Helix in that consolidating things to a single location would be beneficial to everyone. 18:45, September 10, 2010 (UTC) I think the CP is underused and should be the hub for this type of discussion. This page should be for talk specifically about the main page of the wiki just like any other article talk page concerns only that article. 16:06, September 11, 2010 (UTC) Ditto what Sandy said. Also, people browsing the Wiki would look here and see arguing, and that's not very pleasing. 19:01, September 12, 2010 (UTC) I think Helix is right. This page is probably more cluttered than it should be. 19:11, September 12, 2010 (UTC) I added a suggestion at the top. Anyone mind that? 23:01, September 12, 2010 (UTC) Looks good to me. 02:18, September 13, 2010 (UTC) STOP. I have some reasons why this should not happen. #This page helps users editcounts. #By helping editcounts, more users can be mentors at the project-Adopt A User. #It's easier to get to this page than the other one-that's why it's not used. #Most users seem to be happy with the way it is at present, anyway. #Generally, users have used this page for ages why change it now? I REALLY don't think it's nessesary to change the way everything is placed here. Do you? Zoe27Gossip Queen!!! 16:53, September 13, 2010 (UTC)